Fortunately for liberals, the Iraqis executed Saddam Hussein the exact same week that former President Ford died, so it didn't seem strange that Nancy Pelosi's flag was at half-staff. Also, Saddam's death made it less of a snub when Harry Reid skipped Ford's funeral.

The passing of Gerald Ford should remind Americans that Democrats are always lying in wait, ready to force a humiliating defeat on America.

More troops, fewer troops, different troops, "redeployment" ? all the Democrats' peculiar little talking points are just a way of sounding busy. Who are they kidding? Democrats want to cut and run as fast as possible from Iraq, betraying the Iraqis who supported us and rewarding our enemies ? exactly as they did to the South Vietnamese under Ford.

Liberals spent the Vietnam War rooting for the enemy and clamoring for America's defeat, a tradition they have brought back for the Iraq war.

They insisted on calling the Soviet-backed Vietcong "the National Liberation Front of Vietnam," just as they call Islamic fascists killing Americans in Iraq "insurgents." Ho Chi Minh was hailed as a "Jeffersonian Democrat," just as Michael Moore compares the Islamic fascists in Iraq to the Minute Men.

During the Vietnam War, New York Times scion Arthur "Pinch" Sulzberger told his father that if an American soldier ran into a North Vietnamese soldier, he would prefer for the American to get shot. "It's the other guy's country," he explained.

Now, as publisher of the Times, Pinch does all he can to help the enemy currently shooting at American soldiers.

After a half-dozen years of Democrat presidents creating a looming disaster in Vietnam ? with Kennedy ordering the assassination of our own ally in the middle of the war and Johnson ham-handedly choosing bombing targets from the Oval Office ? in 1969, Nixon became president and the world was safe again.

Nixon began a phased withdrawal of American ground troops, while protecting the South Vietnamese by increasing the bombings of the North, mining North Vietnamese harbors and attacking North Vietnamese military supplies in Cambodia ? all actions hysterically denounced by American liberals, eager for the communists to defeat America.

Despite the massive anti-war protests staged by the Worst Generation, their takeovers of university buildings and their bombings of federal property to protest the bombing of North Vietnamese property, Nixon's Vietnam policy was apparently popular with normal Americans. In 1972, he won re-election against "peace" candidate George McGovern in a 49-state landslide.

In January 1973, the United States signed the Paris Peace accords, which would have ended the war with honor. In order to achieve a ceasefire, Nixon jammed lousy terms down South Vietnam's throat, such as allowing Vietcong troops to remain in the South. But in return, we promised South Vietnam that we would resume bombing missions and provide military aid if the North attacked.

It would have worked, but the Democrats were desperate for America to lose. They invented "Watergate," the corpus delicti of which wouldn't have merited three column-inches during the Clinton years, and hounded Nixon out of office. (How's Sandy Berger weathering that tough wrist-slap?)

Three months after Nixon was gone, we got the Watergate Congress and with it, the new Democratic Party. In lieu of the old Democratic Party, which lost wars out of incompetence and naivete, the new Democratic Party would lose wars on purpose.

Just one month after the Watergate Congress was elected, North Vietnam attacked the South.

Even milquetoast, pro-abortion, detente-loving Gerald R. Ford knew America had to defend South Vietnam or America's word would be worth nothing. As Ford said, "American unwillingness to provide adequate assistance to allies fighting for their lives could seriously affect our credibility throughout the world as an ally." He pleaded repeatedly with the Democratic Congress simply to authorize aid to South Vietnam ? no troops, just money.

But the Democrats turned their backs on South Vietnam, betrayed an ally and trashed America's word. Within a month of Ford's last appeal to Congress to help South Vietnam, Saigon fell.

The entire world watched as American personnel desperately scrambled into helicopters from embassy rooftops in Saigon while beating back our own allies, to whom we could offer no means of escape. It was the most demeaning image of America ever witnessed, until Britney Spears came along.

Southeast Asia was promptly consumed in a maelstrom of violence that seems to occur whenever these "Jeffersonian Democrats" come to power. Communist totalitarians swept through Laos, Cambodia and all of Vietnam. They staged gruesome massacres so vast that none other than Sen. George McGovern called for military intervention to stop a "clear case of genocide" in Cambodia.

Five years after that, Islamic lunatics in Iran felt no compunction about storming the embassy of what was once the greatest superpower on Earth and taking American citizens hostage for 14 months. To this day, al-Qaida boosts the flagging morale of its jihadists by reminding them of America's humiliating retreat from Vietnam.

In addition to being wrong about Ford's pardon of Nixon, liberals were wrong about a few other things from that era. Democrats haven't admitted error in rejecting Ford's pleas on behalf of South Vietnam because there are still dangerous foreigners trying to kill Americans. Nixon is safely interred in the ground, but the enemies of America continue to need the Democrats' help.

Dont be afraid to seek more knowledge. I respect her because she isnt afraid to call out the liberals.

And I don't respect her because she twists the truth and is a mean-spirited bigot. I hold her in the same regard as Michael Moore; they are two sides of the same coin, the coin of hatred and divisiveness, the coin of self-interest above all.

And oh hell, EVERYONE attacks liberals. It makes great talk radio for the unemployed and the shutins. Need a bogeyman? It couldn't be the government in charge, blame it on the liberals!

There are more reactionary pundits out there than you and I have fingers and toes. The Limbaughs, OReilley, Hannity, etc, etc, etc. Loud talk and forceful bluster is much more entertaining than reasonable discussion and satisfactory solutions.

And I don't respect her because she twists the truth and is a mean-spirited bigot. I hold her in the same regard as Michael Moore; they are two sides of the same coin, the coin of hatred and divisiveness, the coin of self-interest above all.

And oh hell, EVERYONE attacks liberals. It makes great talk radio for the unemployed and the shutins. Need a bogeyman? It couldn't be the government in charge, blame it on the liberals!

There are more reactionary pundits out there than you and I have fingers and toes. The Limbaughs, OReilley, Hannity, etc, etc, etc. Loud talk and forceful bluster is much more entertaining than reasonable discussion and satisfactory solutions.

Tom

I am not quite sure I agree with you here. The real problem is that both sides see the other side as the hatemonger and the problem. For every Ann Coulter, there is a NY Times editor. For every Rush Limbaugh, there is a Washington Post editor. We really have two media rivers in this country, and they are both just as biased.

And please, no one tell me about the "Above it all neutral press." There is no such thing. Time, Newsweek, Newsmax, Wall Street Journal. They ALL play to thier political leanings.

I have more respect for coulter, limbaugh, and those on Air America, because they are HONEST about thier political leanings.

Michael Moore, who writes a political hit piece, and tries to call it a "documentary," is utterly absurd. I cringe when I see a republican senator or a democratic aide to the president now on a cable newschannel "reporting" the news.

Yeah... Right.

People may not like Ann Coulter... but at least she is honest in what she believes and how she portrays her body of work.

I am going to re-post a thought I had previously stated about Ann Colter...and political pundits not being representative of the populace.

Quote:

Lets all agree that virtually every person we are talking about here either has an agenda or is a far left/right lunatic.
I fought in a war that the "far-left" said was all about oil prices. Well...Al Gore (specifically made statements) and Barbara Boxer (who is about as bright as a box of hair) can kiss my patriotic red/white/blue ass!!! I was only in country for about 1 week when I KNEW what I was fighting for...I talked to Kuwaiti refugees who told me about their relatives being shot for being "political"...their daughters being raped by soldiers to force the families to rat out insurgents....I saw a little boy who had his hand slammed in a door repeatedly. I was fighting against "evil"...its not something that is arbitrary...not something that is "up to the individual to define"...Bad is bad and Good is good and EVERY person is born with at least a small notion of the difference. I say that to point out that it was "politically expedient" for certain members of political parties and certain radio "heads" to try and paint themselves as intellectuals and "whole-world thinkers". THEIR agenda and political future became more important than truth! Ann Coulter is no different..just opposite sides of the political spectrum. She is trying to sell a book....period. I have no love for wifes of 911 victims, who appear in political ads...TACKY!....DISRESPECTFUL!....but words ARE weapons and Ann Coulter very often needs to put away her tanks and use a pistol when making a point. HOWEVER ...please dont use Al Franken and his empty bag of gummi bears that he calls literature as a means to prove a point.
No one person speaks for any political party...No one person can speak for all individuals... An opportunistic Ann Coulter no more speaks for the Republican party than the lying, thiefing Hillary Clinton represents Democrats...nor for that matter...does a group of idiotic illiterate fanatics (who probably should try READING the Bible, instead of placing the doctrine of men above the Doctrine of God) represent the Baptist faith.It is up to US to use a small portion of discernment when reading/listening to any person whos job relies on our willingness to open our pocketbook.